GNU bug report logs - #6281
Fwd: Possible bug in coreutils-8.5 or associated gnulib version

Previous Next

Package: coreutils;

Reported by: Chris Clayton <chris2553 <at> googlemail.com>

Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:58:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Chris Clayton <chris2553 <at> googlemail.com>
To: Bruno Haible <bruno <at> clisp.org>
Cc: bug-gnulib <at> gnu.org, Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>, 6281 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#6281: Fwd: Possible bug in coreutils-8.5 or associated gnulib version
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 09:41:13 +0100
Hi,

On Friday 28 May 2010, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > >> Chris Clayton wrote:
> > >> > but make check hangs when
> > >> > gnulib-tests/test-lock is run. The log showed that the hang occurred
> > >> > somewhere after the
> > >> > message "Starting test_rwlock" was output
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > The only thing I can think of is that glibc is a bit old at 2.7,
> >
> > Using glibc-2.7 with a new kernel is unusual indeed.
>
> But the kernel people try hard not to break backward compatibility, and
> while glibc-2.7 is not as bleeding edge as linux 2.6.34, it is less than
> 3 years old.
>
> You can easily reduce the size of test-lock.c so that only one of the four
> tests is run. The next step will be to manually expand the macros from
> gnulib's <lock.h>, so that you get 100% POSIX compliant source code.
> With that, you could go to the glibc people and ask for help.
>
> But given that glibc-2.7 is old, you would need someone else to reproduce
> it also with a newer glibc. And personally I would guess it's a breakage
> in the new linux 2.6.34. But in order to isolate a bug in the multithread
> system calls, you need help of a some super hacker like Ulrich Drepper or
> Ingo Molnar.
>

I built and installed glibc-2.11.1, this time against 2.6.33.4 kernel headers 
instead of the 2.6.26.x headers that were previously in /usr/src/linux. My idea 
was to just test the failing coreutils test application (test-lock), although, 
of course, a failure with this configuration may have been a false failure. 
Anyway. my system seems to be completely stable (although I do have the comfort 
of an archive of the old glibc-2.7-based system) and more importantly in the 
context of coreutils and gnulib, test-lock succeeds every time. I guess that 
could be a false success because all my apps are built against glibc-2.7 but 
running against glibc-2.11.1, but I've given my most frequently used 
applications a quite a good workout and everything seems to be working. On the 
face of it, the problem is in libpthread in glibc-2.7, especially as it went 
away when the coreutil test applications were built against libpth.

Unless someone knows of a really good reason to do so, I'm not minded to chase 
this any longer. I have a workaround to build and test coreutils should I find 
that I need to revert to my glibc-2.7-based system, but for the time being at 
least, I think I'll stick with 2.11.1.

Thanks for your help.

> So, can you trim down the testcase to something that fails with glibc-2.11
> and submit that through the glibc bugzilla?
>
> Bruno

-- 
The more I see, the more I know. The more I know, the less I understand. 
Changing Man - Paul Weller




This bug report was last modified 14 years and 40 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.